A student, troubled by conflicting views of Islam (religion of peace or religion of terrorism), writes in to ask:

"How does one weed through the often contradictory and opposing information found in our history books? Theories and opinions are always open to debate, but how can we ensure that at least the "nuts-and-bolts" facts upon which we base our theories and opinions are reliable and factual?”

"'What is truth' said jesting Pilate and would not stay for an answer" is the famous beginning of Francis Bacon's essay on truth. Pilate was smart enough to know at least one of his limitations, and it is probably foolish of me not to wash my hands of the question. (I hope the joke will not be taken as blasphemous.) Since this column is about teaching and learning and not about epistemology (the philosophy that studies how we know what we think we know), I'll try to keep this simple.

First, let us assume that truth exists and that human beings can know a part of it but only a part of it. "Now I know in part," as Paul tells us, but a Greek pagan would have agreed. Christians have to believe this, and non-Christians, unless they wish to go mad, usually accept the first proposition, though some scientists talk as if they were Prometheus or were ready to rebuild Babel. Truth is different from honesty. Honesty is the virtue in our character that encourages us to say what we believe to be true, while truth is reality, that which really does exist, which is why Our Lord is said to be the Truth, not because He does not lie (which of course He does not) but because he is the realest thing to have taken human form, very (i.e., true) man of very God as the Creed tells us.

Christians know some truths by revelation and by tradition, but our student is not talking about such questions as the creation of the universe or the existence of God or the relationship among the members of the Holy Trinity. He wants to know how to sort through conflicting theories about the Crusades or the American War between the States and come to conclusions that are truthful, that is, have more truth than opposite or alternative conclusions.

Many scholars would claim that the only way to strive for truth is by being objective, that is, by eliminating all the prejudices that come from your personal experience, your ethnic and national identity, and your religion. They might as well ask us to flap our arms and fly across the Grand Canyon. No ordinary mortal can entirely escape the blinders of subjectivity and those who claim to have done so, e.g., modern university teachers, have simply put on another pair of blinders that prevent them from seeing any good either in patriotism or religion. In the case of Islam, as Christians we begin by believing it is a false religion and an enemy of our Faith. If we say anything else, we are either lying or else giving up our Faith. In recognizing our prejudices, we are one up on the scholars who claim not to have any, because we can be on guard against our tendency to lie in a good cause or, rather, in our own cause.

If we cannot be objective, we can at least be careful to distinguish facts from wishful thinking. Let us suppose we come from Illinois and support, in retrospect, the Union cause and admire Abraham Lincoln. An honest admirer of Lincoln, who wanted to learn the truth about him, would begin by reading accounts from non-admirers or from people who actually knew him, like his law partner William Herndon. Reading such books as Edgar Lee Masters' Lincoln the Man, one learns that Lincoln was not a Christian, he was not an especially good lawyer (though he did a lot of work for big business), he treated his first fiancee badly and seems in general not to have respected women, and he disliked African-Americans and did not wish to permit them to vote or hold office. Indeed, he supported a movement to repatriate blacks back to Africa. You may still want to argue he was a very great man, but you will no longer say untruths about his religion or his view of African-Americans.

Here are some simple rules: Always, whenever possible, go back to original sources. If they are in a language you do not know, be careful to compare translations of crucial texts, but if you are seriously interested in a subject, such as, say, Spartan history, then begin studying the language(s) you will need. Always familiarize yourself with the "enemy's" point of view, and never confine your studies to just one generation of historians or scholars. Every age has its prejudices and if we only read American historians who have written over the past 50 years, we will never escape the prejudices of our own time.

Do not make the mistake so many people do, who go to the library and get a few recent books on the First Crusade or Cortez' conquest of Mexico. Always read whatever original sources are available, grappling with them as if they were people. If you are going to follow the opinion of some modern scholar, then read up on him, and find out the failings he is accused of by his enemies and learn something about the controversies he is engaged in. Otherwise you are simply following blindly someone who may not deserve your trust. Obviously, I am not talking now about how a young person learns US history, or how a professional scholar works, but how a grownup pursues truth in his spare time. In general, though, stay away from textbooks, TV series, websites (unless they provide original texts), and best-sellers. It is better to read and reread Thucydides than ever to look at hack-historians like Donald Kagan, who rehash the facts to fit a fashionable point of view.

To take up the question of Islam. This is too large a subject to tackle, so begin with one small part of it, such as the life and career of Mohammed and his early successors. In your pursuit of truth about Islam you soon find that there are several kinds of sources, such as modern lives of Mohammed written from positive and negative points of view; then there is the Koran and other early Islamic writings. But there are also non-Muslim historians and witnesses to the rise of Islamic power in the Middle East. Learn what Muslims say, walk (so to speak) in their shoes for a while, then study what Christians have said.

You will eventually learn a few firm things: first, that Muslims have been capable of sustaining civilization, though usually by borrowing from the people they conquered; that many Muslims have been capable of kindness, courage, mercy, and chivalry, though Mohammed himself is guilty, on his own account, of disgusting crimes. Study their theology including their crudely materialist view of the Afterlife and compare it with Christian theology. Unless you are going to make a career out of Islamic studies, you probably will not try to learn Arabic or Turkish, but the Christian sources are mostly in Greek, Latin, Italian, and Medieval French and you will in any case want to master some of those languages if you have any serious historical or literary interests.

Complete truth about anything is denied to humanity; objectivity is an impossible dream. Any attempt to transcend these two limitations will usually end in a moral disaster—intellectual arrogance and self-deceit. You can, however, make a generous study of the enemy, concede him his virtues, tell the truth about the failings of your own side, and imitate the mythical example of Saladin and Richard I, who admired each other’s courage and treated each other with respect. If fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, then humility, patience, and courtesy are the beginning of knowledge.

Dr. Thomas Fleming

Click here if you wish to submit questions for Dr. Fleming to answer for The Autodidact Blog.